Connect with us

Science

How L.A. County is trying to remake addiction treatment — no more 'business as usual'

Published

on

How L.A. County is trying to remake addiction treatment — no more 'business as usual'

Gary Horejsi wrestled with the decision before him, knowing a life could be in his hands.

It was the third time that the woman had used drugs or alcohol since coming to CRI-Help, which runs a 135-bed residential facility in North Hollywood where people are treated for substance use disorder.

CRI-Help needed to be a safe place for people grappling with their addictions. In the past, others had been removed for less. Horejsi, the clinical director, had the final say on whether she should be discharged.

He perused her file on his computer. The woman was still trying, CRI-Help staffers told him. She hadn’t shared drugs with anyone. And if she were to leave, the risks of an overdose were graver than before.

Horejsi decided to let her stay.

Advertisement

“Things can’t be business as usual anymore,” their chief executive, Brandon Fernandez, later said at a CRI-Help staff meeting. If someone leaves treatment and resumes using drugs the same way they were before, “that could very well look like them dying.”

“So are we going to be willing to do something different?”

“Things can’t be business as usual anymore,” CRI-Help Chief Executive Brandon Fernandez told his staff at a meeting in North Hollywood on April 10.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Fernandez had gathered CRI-Help staff in their North Hollywood conference room to talk about a Los Angeles County initiative that could reshape such decisions. It’s called Reaching the 95% — or R95 — and its goal is to engage with more people than the fraction of Angelenos already getting addiction treatment.

Across the country, more than 48 million people had a drug or alcohol use disorder, according to the latest results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Only 13 million received treatment in the previous year. Among those who did not get treatment, roughly 95% said they did not think that they should.

Those numbers have collided with the grim toll of fentanyl, an especially potent opioid that has driven up deaths across the country. In Los Angeles County, the number of overdose deaths tied to fentanyl skyrocketed between 2016 and 2022, soaring from 109 to 1,910, according to a county report.

“We can’t just take the approach that we’ve been taking and kind of assume that everyone wants the services that we offer,” said Dr. Gary Tsai, director of the Substance Abuse Prevention and Control division at the L.A. County Department of Public Health. “That’s just not the reality.”

His department is trying to nudge addiction treatment facilities to change their approach, by offering financial incentives for those that meet R95 requirements. Among them: changing their rules to not automatically eject people who have a “lapse” of drug use.

Advertisement

Fernandez, whose organization is participating in R95, said abstinence is still its aspirational goal — and “we still have the ability to use our own clinical judgment on a case-by-case basis,” such as if people endanger other participants. But “we shouldn’t have blanket policies.”

To get R95 funding, they also cannot require people to be totally abstinent before being admitted. And under R95, treatment programs are also being encouraged to partner with syringe programs rooted in “harm reduction” — a philosophy focused on minimizing the harmful effects of drug use — to address the needs of people who may not want to enter or remain in treatment.

Some treatment providers “view us as the enemy instead of as allies,” said Soma Snakeoil, executive director of the Sidewalk Project, which provides Narcan spray to reverse overdoses and other services on L.A.’s Skid Row.

With R95, she said, “the biggest change is that harm reduction organizations and treatment providers are talking to each other in a way that was not happening before.”

A woman wearing gloves gives first aid to a woman on the sidewalk with an open wound on her foot.

Soma Snakeoil, executive director of the Sidewalk Project, gives first aid to a woman with an open wound on her foot last year in Los Angeles.

(Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The county is also prodding addiction treatment facilities to reexamine whether the way they operate could be turning people away, and look more closely at the “customer experience.” Tsai compared the situation to a restaurant drawing few customers: “How do we get more people in the door?”

Too often, “the drug dealers do a much better job of delivering their product to our patients than we do,” said Dr. Randolph Holmes, chair of government affairs for the California Society of Addiction Medicine.

When Johnny Guerrero decided to get off Skid Row and go into residential treatment in Los Angeles, he was initially turned away because he had arrived “late — maybe 10 minutes late,” the 35-year-old said.

He was only able to get in, he said, because the harm reduction worker who had taken him to the facility let him stay the night at her home, then brought him back the next morning. Even then, “there was so much paperwork. I was so dopesick. There was just hurdle after hurdle after hurdle.”

Advertisement

“They did not make it easy for an addict to get help,” Guerrero said.

In many cases, “the biggest barrier is just being able to get somebody on the phone” with a treatment provider, said Amanda Cowan, executive director of Community Health Project LA, which provides clean syringes and other services to people who use drugs. “When people are ready, they are ready in that moment.”

As of late March, roughly half of the addiction treatment providers that contract with L.A. County were on track to become “R95 Champions,” which could yield hundreds of thousands of dollars each in additional funding.

A building interior, with a staircase and chairs. In the center two hands hold up a sign reading "We care."

CRI-Help’s George T. Pfleger center in North Hollywood.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

To get those funds, they must turn in admissions and discharge policies that adhere to the R95 guidelines, as well as an “engagement policy.” They are also supposed to meet R95 requirements in one other area of their choice, which could include a “customer walkthrough” to see what might turn away clients.

CRI-Help, for instance, had decided to change how it asks newcomers to undergo a search. “The last thing we want to do is trigger someone’s trauma history and potentially have them walk out the door,” Fernandez said.

To ensure it was consistently done with sensitivity, CRI-Help drew up a script for staffers, emphasizing that consenting to a search would help maintain a safe facility. The hope is that “they feel they’re doing something as a part of a community — versus being forced to undergo something that’s uncomfortable.”

Staffers also tell them that if they have any drugs to hand over, “there’s not going to be any consequence, you can still come into treatment,” Fernandez said. “And if we find them on you, there still won’t be any negative consequences.”

The L.A. County push comes as state and federal officials have stressed the need for “low barrier” approaches to addiction care. Even cutting back on drug use can have positive results, researchers have found.

Advertisement

But some of the changes can be at odds with long-standing beliefs among treatment providers, many of whom got into the field after successfully battling their own addictions in programs firmly focused on abstinence.

Many in the field think “this is what works” because it did work for them, said Vitka Eisen, chief executive of HealthRight 360, another R95 participant. But “we’re the survivors, and we don’t talk to those who didn’t survive.”

Addiction researchers have long called to reexamine how people are treated for substance use disorders. More than a decade ago, a Columbia University center found that “much of what passes for ‘treatment’ of addiction bears little resemblance to the treatment of other health conditions.”

“This is inexcusable given decades of accumulated scientific evidence attesting to the fact that addiction is a brain disease,” the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse lamented in its report.

Experts argue that part of the problem is that addiction treatment has long been separated from the rest of the healthcare system. Richard Rawson, senior advisor to UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, said a major shift was the emergence of buprenorphine, a medication for opioid addiction that could be prescribed in ordinary clinics just like medicines for other chronic conditions.

Advertisement

But some Southern California treatment providers have viewed using buprenorphine and other such medications as short of sobriety, UC San Diego researchers found — even as California has ushered in requirements for licensed treatment facilities to either offer or help people access such medications.

Addiction is now much more widely understood as a medical condition, but “how much of that philosophy actually gets down to the level of the counselor?” Rawson said. “I think that’s still a work in progress.”

Tsai said a challenge in rolling out R95 is the ingrained idea that “you’re ready or not” for substance use treatment. But “we don’t actually treat any other health condition that way,” he said. “You don’t tell someone with diabetes, ‘Your blood sugar has to be completely under control, and then you’ll be ready for treatment.’”

In North Hollywood, counselors and other CRI-Help employees seated around the conference table studied the R95 goals printed on an L.A. County handout. One staffer said she was struggling with a specific statement, particularly for people in a residential setting: “Requiring abstinence is too high of a bar” for treatment.

Fernandez decided to share his own story. More than a decade ago, he was struggling with drug use, which had worsened after the death of his father. He was unemployed and didn’t have a stable place to live. When an outpatient counselor suggested residential treatment, he initially brushed off the suggestion.

Advertisement
A person looks over papers while seated at a conference room table

CRI-Help’s staffers had questions and concerns about the changing approach to addiction treatment but ultimately seemed supportive.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

He changed his mind after a “tough weekend,” but had no intention of abstaining from all drugs in the long term. Fernandez said he was nonetheless welcomed at CRI-Help: “Let’s just help you out for now.”

“I came here begrudgingly with a total attitude that I was going to continue smoking weed when I left treatment. I definitely wasn’t going to stop drinking,” even as he recognized that other things he was doing might be a problem, Fernandez told the CRI-Help employees.

Among those who had gone to treatment, he asked the group, “were you ready for total abstinence on Day One?”

Advertisement

“No. That wasn’t even my plan,” the same staffer replied with a rueful laugh.

Still, she and others were anxious about how they would keep everyone safe if clients used drugs, especially if they tried to bring them into the facility. “That worries me a little bit,” she said.

“It worries me too,” Fernandez said.

What preoccupies CRI-Help staff is how to balance the needs of people who have had a “lapse” into drug use with maintaining a safe environment for other clients grappling with addiction.

Horejsi said in an interview that whenever someone uses — even if they don’t share their drugs — “everyone knows, and that in itself does have an effect on people. Sometimes people will feel less safe.”

Advertisement

But Horejsi stressed to the group that “we’re already not discharging people for using” alone.

When people have relapsed, the North Hollywood center has monitored them one-on-one in its television room until staff are sure they are safe, then decided on their next steps. Some have ultimately been moved to another CRI-Help residential facility to continue getting treatment and have a “fresh start,” he said.

The clinical director also urged his co-workers to look back at the many changes CRI-Help had already undergone, such as starting to offer medication for addiction treatment. He reminded them that years ago, CRI-Help clients could be discharged if a doctor had given them an opioid pill at the hospital.

A woman speaks

Mary Grayson, a longtime staff member at CRI-Help, spoke positively of the organizations changes over the years.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“What about when we discharged people because they talked about getting — they glorified drugs?” said Mary Grayson, a longtime CRI-Help employee.

Leaning forward in her seat, Grayson reminded her co-workers that “CRI-Help is not what it was when I walked through those doors 25 years ago — thank God!”

It started with “two shacks on this property. Two raggedy shacks. And look at where we are now,” she said. “Without us changing and growing, we won’t be able to be who we are.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

Published

on

Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat

President Trump once celebrated the COVID-19 vaccines released at the end of his first term as “one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” echoing the sentiments of mainstream medical officials who praised their rapid development as pivotal in combating the then-raging pandemic.

But as his second administration takes shape, some are sounding the alarm regarding Trump’s picks to lead major public health agencies, concerned that the nominees’ skepticism, if not hostility, toward vaccines could jeopardize the nation’s ability to respond to new or resurgent infectious threats.

There’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who has called the COVID-19 vaccine the “deadliest vaccine ever made” and said that “there’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has contended that he’s not against vaccines, but has spread the myth that they commonly injure children and can cause autism.

(Morry Gash / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Nominated to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is Dr. Dave Weldon, a former congressman from Florida who has expressed skepticism of the safety of vaccines and promoted the discredited idea that a preservative, thimerosal, that has been used in some vaccines, or the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine — which has never used thimerosal — may be linked to autism.

Skepticism and outright conspiracy theories about vaccines are nothing new, and health officials have long warned about the potential pitfalls of such misinformation.

But now, some top doubters could be in the position to shape federal health policy.

While COVID is no longer the grave public health threat it once was, the disease spikes periodically — as it did this summer — and has continued to be responsible for the most hospitalizations and deaths of any respiratory disease nationally, with nearly 60,000 fatalities for the yearlong period that ended Sept. 30. And other infectious threats, be they whooping cough, measles or the latest strain of bird flu, continue to loom.

Advertisement

“We really don’t want to return to the era where these vaccine-preventable diseases were frequent, and children were getting sick or hospitalized or even dying,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former deputy director at the CDC, who served at the agency for more than three decades, starting in the Reagan administration. “We’ve been fortunate in the past couple decades to have high levels of vaccination and low levels of most of the diseases.”

Neither the Trump transition team, a spokesperson for Kennedy, nor Weldon answered requests for comment for this story.

Trump, who had his own brush with the coronavirus near the end of his first term, hailed the rapid development of the COVID vaccines as a “monumental national achievement” and celebrated the production of “a verifiably safe and effective vaccine.”

He continued in 2021 to promote COVID vaccines in interviews and at rallies, though he also said he didn’t support making the shots mandatory. That year alone, the World Health Organization estimates, the vaccines likely saved at least 14.4 million lives worldwide.

But even then, skepticism surrounding the shots was starting to take root — including among Trump’s supporters. A KFF survey found that 60% of Republicans who support his “Make America Great Again” agenda got at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at some point. But by late 2023, another KFF survey found that 70% of self-identified MAGA Republicans were either not too confident or not at all confident in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Advertisement

That same survey found that only 36% of Republicans were very or somewhat confident the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, compared with 54% of independents and 84% of Democrats.

Kennedy has contended he is not “anti-vaccine,” but his organization, the Children’s Health Defense, has questioned their safety. Kennedy himself has criticized what he sees as deficits in the science on vaccine safety and spread the myth that vaccines commonly injure children.

When asked by a documentary maker whether there were any vaccines in history that were a benefit to mankind, Kennedy replied: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

More recently, he has said he would not “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

But even if a vaccine isn’t taken away entirely, “you can just make it much harder for people to get,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and a former White House COVID-19 Response coordinator under President Biden.

Advertisement
Dr. Ashish Jha gestures while speaking with a White House logo on the wall behind him

Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health.

(Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

For instance, Jha said, newly appointed officials could demand randomized clinical trials for every annual update to the COVID vaccine — “even though we don’t do that for the flu vaccines.”

“If that is a new standard that they create, it probably will make it impossible for [updated] COVID vaccines to be available in time for the holiday season,” Jha said. “If they follow through on their own previous critiques, they may box themselves in and make it very, very hard for Americans to even get COVID vaccines.”

Kennedy has also advanced the baseless claim that thimerosal in vaccines can cause autism, which has been thoroughly discredited by scientists. Thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines since 2001, according to the CDC, and “research does not show any link between thimerosal and autism.” While it is still used in some flu vaccines, parents can request a formulation without the preservative for their children.

Advertisement

Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics also say the MMR vaccine — which protects against measles, mumps and rubella and is a major target of the anti-vax movement — is safe.

Critics have also accused Kennedy of spreading misinformation regarding the safety of the measles vaccine in Samoa. The Associated Press reported that Kennedy traveled to the island nation in June 2019 and met with anti-vaccine activists before a severe outbreak that killed 83, mostly infants and children.

At the time, public health officials said anti-vaccine misinformation had made the nation vulnerable. Kennedy has denied playing a role in the outbreak, which he has characterized as “mild.” “I had nothing to do with people not vaccinating in Samoa. I never told anybody not to vaccinate,” Kennedy told an interviewer in the 2023 documentary “Shot in the Arm.”

In a video published by the New York Post in 2023, Kennedy floated the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 may have been engineered to avoid harming Jews and Chinese people. Critics called his comments antisemitic and anti-Asian.

In a social media post, Kennedy said “the insinuation” that “I am somehow antisemitic, is a disgusting fabrication.” In another post, Kennedy said he has “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews” and asserted “that the U.S. and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races.”

Advertisement

Some scientists have dismissed some of Kennedy’s assertions as absurd and not based in science.

“One of my biggest concerns about about him is the misinformation that he spreads around vaccination,” said Dr. Richard Besser, who served as acting CDC director during the initial response to the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic and is now president and chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The Health and Human Services secretary plays a major role in setting health priorities for the nation — suggesting how much money various agencies should get, helping determine what is covered for people on Medicare or Medicaid, and having a say in what kind of public recommendations the agency issues, Besser said.

Kennedy “consistently shows that he doesn’t believe in modern medicine, doesn’t believe in the scientific process that has led to these huge gains that we’ve had” in public health, Jha said.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, whom Trump appointed as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during his first term, said on CNBC that if Kennedy follows through on his rhetoric, “You’re going to see measles, mumps and rubella vaccination rates go down,” which he expects would result in large outbreaks. “For every 1,000 cases of measles that occur in children, there will be one death,” he added.

Advertisement

Trump’s apparent skepticism toward some vaccine requirements — during the campaign he pledged to “not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate” — is also raising alarm bells in some corners.

Making moves that would erode the share of schoolchildren receiving vaccines they have been getting for generations would “create health risks” for the community at large, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

Dr. Mark Ghaly smiling for a portrait beside his reflection in a window

“I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner” if federal funding for public health work is reduced, said Dr. Mark Ghaly, former secretary of California’s Health and Human Services Agency.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

If a policy scrapping federal funding at schools that enforce vaccination requirements for schoolchildren were enacted, some districts or states may have to make tough decisions. While most public schools largely rely on state and local funding, federal dollars flow to support certain programs, such as school lunches.

Advertisement

California is a little less reliant on federal funding for public health work, but “I can imagine that some states may be pushed into a corner,” Ghaly said.

State and local health officials should also speak up if they see messaging from the federal government that amounts to misinformation, Jha said. “It is, I think, really critical for state and local public health officials to speak up and not cede the floor to federal officials, especially if those federal officials are not sort of sticking to where the scientific evidence is,” Jha said.

Different leadership at national health agencies could also affect the availability or cost of vaccines.

“Could they become harder to get? Could it become more expensive to get in some places? Maybe not in the first year or two, but down the road, absolutely,” Ghaly said.

The federal government’s childhood vaccination program, run out of the CDC with oversight from Health and Human Services, plays a major role in getting half the kids in America their childhood vaccines essentially for free, Jha said. If federal officials decide to gut the program, “a lot of poor kids are not going to have easy access to vaccines, which, of course, would be tragic and would put everybody at risk.”

Advertisement

Other questions include whether future federal health officials would seek next fall to water down the CDC’s current recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get vaccinated against COVID — and whether that would affect whether insurers cover the costs of vaccines.

One glimpse into a sharply different way of managing COVID vaccination recommendations is in Florida.

In a move at direct odds with the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, Florida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, advised against getting mRNA COVID vaccinations this fall and suggested that healthcare providers look into a non-mRNA shot for the elderly and immunocompromised. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines both use mRNA technology, while a different vaccine from Novavax does not.

Ladapo, a former professor at UCLA, is viewed favorably by some highly ranked Republicans, including Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who appointed him. Just after the election, DeSantis urged Trump to appoint Ladapo as the next secretary of Health and Human Services.

The CDC and FDA have rebuked earlier claims by Ladapo, saying his suggestion that there was an increased risk of harmful, life-threatening side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccines was “incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” The letter said the FDA-approved COVID vaccines have met rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness.

Advertisement

Jha said he thought some of Trump’s other administration picks were reasonable, including the nomination of Dr. Marty Makary, a surgical oncologist at Johns Hopkins University, to run the FDA.

Makary drew attention for a February 2021 op-ed in which he wrote he expected COVID-19 to be “mostly gone” by that April, a prediction that failed to materialize. Later that year, he criticized federal recommendations to have 16- and 17-year-olds receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster, citing a lack of supporting clinical data. In early 2022, he criticized experts who he said discounted infection-derived immunity to COVID.

Jha said he disagrees with Makary on a number of topics — such as, in his view, discounting the value of COVID vaccinations in kids. The difference between Kennedy and Makary, Jha said, is that Makary’s views “are within the range of medical professionals who believe in modern medicine, who can disagree honestly.”

Among Trump’s other picks Jha said he considered reasonable was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University health policy professor and economist who was critical of pandemic lockdowns, and offered pandemic policy advice to Florida. Nominated to run the National Institutes of Health, Bhattacharya supported a pandemic response called “focused protection” — protecting those at highest risk of death while allowing others to “live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection.”

“I think some of his ideas and recommendations during the pandemic were really problematic and caused a lot of suffering,” Jha said of Bhattacharya, adding that no state was able to implement “focused protection” and that “lots of Floridians died.”

Advertisement

But, Jha added, “If the question is — is he qualified? This is a guy who has an MD, PhD at Stanford … he’s got a very broad body of work, mostly in health economics … He’s very smart, very experienced.”

Continue Reading

Science

L.A.'s mountain lions become more nocturnal to avoid people. Does it come at a cost?

Published

on

L.A.'s mountain lions become more nocturnal to avoid people. Does it come at a cost?

Griffith Park’s late celebrity mountain lion P-22 took the night shift to avoid hordes of hikers, bikers and dawdlers who frequented his home in the heart of Los Angeles — and it’s a pattern replicated by other pumas in the region, according to a new study.

The move to a later schedule is an encouraging example of a species doing its part to coexist in a bustling megalopolis, according to researchers from UC Davis and other institutions who conducted the study.

But the temporal gymnastics they perform may come at a cost, experts said, consuming energy and limiting the amount of time they can spend on critical tasks such as hunting. And it may compound other urban stressors, like whizzing traffic and rat poison.

The study, published last month in the journal Biological Conservation, found that Southland mountain lions became more nocturnal and less crepuscular — i.e., active at dusk or dawn — in popular recreation areas.

To examine the impact of recreation on the lions, researchers used GPS and activity data gleaned from the tracking collars of 22 mountain lions roaming the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding region between 2011 and 2018.

Advertisement

They also drew data from Strava, a popular app in which users publicly document runs, hikes and more to determine how much recreation was happening in each lion’s home range, and to test how it influenced the patterns and timing of their activity.

The “most nocturnal” puma in the study was the late P-41, who inhabited the Verdugo Mountains, a range bounded by freeways and development on the northeast edge of the San Fernando Valley, and a recreation haven. Ranked second was P-22, affectionately called the Brad Pitt of mountain lions when he stalked the Hollywood Hills.

The study revealed that female lions were less nocturnal than males, possibly because males pose a threat to them and their kittens.

(National Park Service via Associated Press)

Advertisement

Researchers wondered if mountain lions who were exposed to more recreation would become immune to it — and simply not care.

“We saw the opposite,” said Ellie Bolas, lead author and a PhD candidate at UC Davis.

“Seeing that mountain lions are flexible in their activity and sensitive to recreation is, I think, a reason we can feel optimistic that they’re willing to avoid us and want to avoid us,” she added.

Other institutions involved included Cal Poly Pomona, the National Park Service, UCLA, the University of Nebraska and Harvard Westlake High School.

The findings are good news for Angelenos worried about becoming a lion’s lunch — given that the cats are steering clear of people. And it helps explain how the apex predators manage to hack it in an intensely urban environment. Los Angeles is just one of two megacities in the world that are home to a big cat; the other is Mumbai, in India, where leopards prowl the streets.

Advertisement

So why are local lions rearranging their schedules for people? The new study notes that animals might high-tail it to areas where there are less people when they can. But in the greater L.A. metropolitan area, with more than 18 million people, even natural areas get gridlocked. So they adopted another strategy.

The National Park Service has monitored lions in and around the Santa Monica Mountains for more than 20 years, which is where the long-term data for the recent research came from.

“A major thing that we’ve been studying all along is the effects of urbanization and fragmentation on these animals,” said Seth Riley, study co-author and branch chief for wildlife at Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, a unit of the park service.

The new study revealed that the lions’ timing shifts weren’t more pronounced on weekends when recreation spikes, contrary to what researchers expected.

There were also differences between the sexes, with female mountain lions found to be more active during the day and closer to sunrise. Researchers surmised that they avoid overlapping with male lions who will kill kittens in tow — and sometimes even the females themselves.

Advertisement

The least nocturnal puma tracked was P-13, a female with a home range in the central and western Santa Monicas.

Beth Pratt, California regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation, said that while it’s good news that the charismatic cats are “coping,” there are likely tradeoffs.

“By switching their hunting strategy, it’s not ideal,” said Pratt, who was one of P-22’s biggest boosters. “It takes more energy, it doesn’t give them as many options, but the animals here are doing their part.”

People should pitch in, too, by minimizing challenges, she said. Panthers stalking the Santa Monica Mountains are imperiled by inbreeding because of freeways that essentially lock them in — and visitors with needed genetic diversity out.

“At a certain point they’re not going to be able to cope with all these challenges stacked up,” she said, pointing to threats such as cars and rodenticides — both of which took a toll on P-22. He was captured and euthanized in late 2022, deemed too sick to return to the wild because of injuries and infection.

Advertisement

One way to give lions “the edge” is by putting up wildlife crossings, said Pratt, who is a major force behind the largest such passageway in the world rising over the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills.

The more than $90-million Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing currently under construction is seen as a potential lifeline for the lions of the Santa Monicas. Without an outlet, the population is at risk of blinking out.

Pratt said the new study shows that actions as seemingly innocuous as how we site trails and enjoy the outdoors can impact the species — and that it would behoove us to consider our approach as we navigate a biodiversity crisis.

“It’s not that we shouldn’t do them, but how can we do them differently so that animals aren’t as impacted,” she said.

Bolas said there’s currently no research to tell us if the lions’ flexibility in the timing of their activity is also a cost to them, but that “it very well may be.”

Advertisement

Revelations from the study arrive as some Southern California and Central Coast cougars are at a crossroads.

California wildlife officials are poised to decide whether to designate six isolated clans of pumas as endangered or threatened species under state law.

The state Fish and Game Commission in 2020 granted the cougars who are roaming regions between Santa Cruz and the U.S.-Mexico border temporary endangered status as a candidate to be listed under the state Endangered Species Act.

A final decision is expected next year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Column: UnitedHealthcare's chief executive was shot dead. Why did thousands react with glee?

Published

on

Column: UnitedHealthcare's chief executive was shot dead. Why did thousands react with glee?

The apparent assassination of UnitedHealthcare Chief Executive Brian Thompson on a Midtown Manhattan sidewalk Wednesday has unleashed an extraordinary outpouring of emotion. But it’s not all horror or sadness over a 50-year-old father of two being shot dead in public by a man in a mask.

Thompson’s death has inspired a torrent of fury about the way his insurance company and others treat — or mistreat — people in their moments of greatest need. Some of the reactions, particularly on social media, have been downright gleeful about the killing.

What a stunning illustration of the hatred so many Americans feel toward for-profit health insurance companies, which too often make money for stockholders by withholding care from sick people.

UnitedHealthcare is a particularly awful exemplar. It is infamous for high denial rates and low reimbursement levels.

According to an investigation by the medical news site Stat and a federal lawsuit recently filed in Minnesota, UnitedHealthcare has been using a deeply flawed artificial intelligence algorithm to wrongfully deny healthcare to elderly and disabled patients. Stat reported that the company “pressured its medical staff to cut off payments for seriously ill patients … denying rehabilitation care for older and disabled Americans as profits soared.”

Advertisement

ProPublica reported last month that the company was using algorithms to identify people it deemed guilty of “therapy overuse” and deny mental health treatment. Both California and Massachusetts determined that the company was breaking the federal law that requires insurers to cover mental health issues the same way they cover physical ailments. UnitedHealthcare denied claims for more than 34,000 therapy sessions from 2013 to 2020 in New York alone, saving the company about $8 million.

Adding to this unsavory picture, four of its top executives, including Thompson, have been under scrutiny for $101.5 million in stock trades they made after the company was informed that it was the target of a federal antitrust investigation but before the news became public and the stock price dropped.

Perhaps all this helps explain why, as of Friday morning, more than 85,000 people had reacted to UnitedHealthcare’s solemn Facebook statement about Thompson’s death with a laugh emoji.

People on other social media platforms also piled on.

“All human life is sacred, so it’s not proper to laugh when serious harm befalls someone,” wrote one Bluesky user. “The moral thing to do is instead charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Advertisement

“UnitedHealth CEO meets the same fate as many of his clients,” posted another Bluesky user above photos of the shooter pointing his gun at Thompson’s back before he reportedly rode off on an e-bike.

Stories of terrible interactions with the largest health insurer in the country also poured forth.

Elizabeth Austin, a single mother who lives in Bucks County, Pa., told me she had a miserable experience with UnitedHealthcare after her young daughter, Carolyn, was diagnosed with leukemia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her chemotherapy caused nausea, so Carolyn’s doctor ordered a nighttime feeding tube to supplement what little she was able to eat while awake. She said United Healthcare wouldn’t pay for the feeding tube unless Carolyn ate no solid food at all.

“I was like, ‘She’s 9! She wants to eat food!’” Austin told me. Unmoved, the insurer forced Austin to pay $900 a month out of pocket for the device.

Later, when Carolyn developed a sensitivity to a sedative used during her monthly lumbar punctures, her doctors switched to another medicine, and the company again denied payment, Austin said. She paid for that herself too.

Advertisement

Austin said she eventually developed a stress-related heart condition that required ablation surgery. She and her daughter are healthy now, but the scars remain. She said she was saddened but not shocked to learn about Thompson’s death.

“These things are happening because people are really struggling,” she told me. “I don’t think the CEO was responsible for my daughter’s caregiving issues, but it’s smart to ask, ‘Why did this happen?’ Could it be a systemic issue?’ People are buckling under the pressure.”

At this point, the motive for Thompson’s killing is a matter of speculation. But ammunition recovered from the scene was inscribed with words often used to describe insurance companies’ anti-patient strategies, including “deny” and “defend,” the Associated Press and others reported.

In the 2010 book “Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It,” Jay M. Feinman, a Rutgers law professor, traces the evolution of insurance companies from generally helpful organizations where adjusters — that is, human beings — were responsible for reimbursements into the antagonistic, algorithm-driven behemoths they are today.

In the 1990s, he writes, insurance companies such as Allstate turned to the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. to develop new strategies.

Advertisement

“McKinsey,” Feinman writes, “saw claims as a ‘zero-sum game,’ with the policyholder and the company competing for the same dollars. No longer would each claim be treated on its merits.” Computers would determine reimbursements, and settlements would be offered on a “take-it-or-litigate basis.” Feinman writes that McKinsey urged Allstate to move “from ‘Good Hands’ to ‘Boxing Gloves.’”

Earlier this year, the insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield announced that it would start limiting reimbursements for anesthesia based on its own time limits for surgeries. The idea, Anthem said, was to prevent overbilling. Doctors, predictably, were outraged.

“This is just the latest in a long line of appalling behavior by commercial health insurers looking to drive their profits up at the expense of patients and physicians providing essential care,” Donald Arnold, the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, told NPR.

On Thursday, after the outpouring of rage against health insurers sparked by Thompson’s killing, Anthem reversed course, blaming “significant widespread misinformation” about its proposed policy for the about-face.

No wonder there is so little empathy for Brian Thompson, who was by many accounts a lovely human being. In death, he has become an unwitting symbol of the terrible things health insurance companies do to people for money.

Advertisement

Bluesky: @rabcarian.bsky.social. Threads: @rabcarian

Continue Reading

Trending